Not finding what you're looking for? Search with Google

• Article
• Discussion

• Page
• Discussion
• Edit
• History

Private agency, public dollars-California

California
Common Definition Themes
These 5 characteristics tend to recur in most state definitions for private agencies which are subject to FOIA laws.
1.) Receive or dispense public funds:	x 1, 5[1]
2.) Created by a public agency:	x 2, 4[2]
3.) Present themselves as a public entity:	f
4.) Perform a public function:	x 2, 4[2]
5.) Controlled or managed by a public entity:	x 1, 5[1]
Key:
f=The legal history does not mention this characteristic or it has rejected this characteristic as a potential defining aspect.
p=This characteristic alone is sufficient to bring an organization under the FOIA.
x=This is a part of a compound definition requiring multiple characteristics. The numbers after the symbol indicate the additional requirements.
w=This is a characteristic that has been mentioned within the legal history and may aid in deciding whether or not the FOIA law applies to an organization but is not a part of a specific definition.

Find your State

Sunshine Laws Open Records laws Open Meetings Laws How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Headlines Across the Country or by State Major Records Requests

Sunshine Legislation 2010 Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Litigation Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances Private Agencies, Public Dollars Deliberative Process Exemption

[edit] Recent news

Funding for Palin's speech at CSU Stanislause questioned

Full article at Palin's speech calls into question California's laws on non-profits

Senator Leland Yee has demanded that the private, non-profit CSU Stanislaus Foundation release the records surrounding its contract with Sarah Palin for her planned June 25 speech at the University. Palin's going rate at other events is around $100,000. Yee claims that the funds which are being used to pay for the speech and public funds and should be disclosed. Currently University Foundations are exempt under the ruling delivered in California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court. However, Yee has introduced a bill, SB 218 this year that would remove that exemption.^[3]

[edit] Statutes

The California Public Records Act includes in its definition of public bodies:

1.) "A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.
(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency."
2.) "The lessee of any hospital the whole or part of which is first leased pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code after January 1, 1994, where the lessee exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the lessee is organized and operated by the local agency or by a delegated authority." ^[1]

[edit] University Foundation Bill

There was a broad sweeping exemption in California law for university foundations, established by California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court. However, this was overturned in 2011 when Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that eliminated the exemption.^[4]

[edit] References

[edit] Litigation

For a full list, see Court cases with an impact on state FOIA, Private companies subject to public records requests.

Here is a list of "Private companies subject to public records requests" litigation for California:

  California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court

California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal.App.4th 810 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 (Ct. App. 2001).

This case established that auxillary associations that act on behalf of public universities are not in themselves public bodies and are therefor not subject to public records requests. ^[1] Template:2.default

  Coronado Police Officers Association v. Carroll

Coronado Police Officers Association v. Carroll, none (Ct. App. 2003).

This case established that the records of the public defender with regard to its endeavors to defend accused individuals are private due to the private nature of the litigation and to insure the effectiveness of public defense. ^[2] Template:2.default

  Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement District

Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 857 (Ct. App. 2001).

This case established that the entire history of a non-profit needed to be considered in order to determine if it was created by a public agency and thus subject to the California Open Meeting Act Template:2.default

  International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc.

International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc., 69 Cal.App.4th 287 (Ct. App. 1999).

This case established that private corporations who perform the function of a public legislative body and who were either directly created by that public body through legislation or indirectly created by that public body through an appointed arm fall under the California Open Meeting Act.^[3] Template:2.default

[edit] Legislation

For a full list, see Proposed transparency legislation, Private agencies legislation.

Here is a list of transparency legislation relating to Private agencies legislation for California in 2010:

Rating	Bill	Current Status	Progress	Information
a	Assembly Bill 181	Current Status:c (Referred to Budget Committee)	e	AB 181 introduced by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana to the Assembly which would require the city of Del Mar to establish a non profit company which would be subject to the California Public Records Act if it chooses to purchase property [1]
b	Senate Bill 218	Current Status:f (Vetoed by Gov. 10/11/2009, Stricken from Senate 1/19/2010)	l	SB 218 is a bill proposed by Senator Leland Yee which would remove the exemption currently in case law established by California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court for auxiliary organizations designed to promote state and local schools. It would redefine the definition of public body within the laws to include these state and local axillary organizations which fundraiser and invest in specific state schools and univerities. It would however protect the anonymity of donors, unless those donors receive a direct material benefit from their donation. [2]

[edit] See also

• Private agency, public dollars
• California Public Records Act

[edit] External links

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Transparency	Public Records Act | Open Meeting Act | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of State website | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites |
State spending	State budget | State salaries | Stimulus allocations | Taxpayer-funded lobbying |
Government	California State Constitution | Executive | House of Representatives | Senate | Local officials | Public school system |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Ballot Measures	2008 Ballot measures | 2008 local ballot measures | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found